=?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_=BFCalculation_to_evaluate_cruelty_to_animals=3F_=28wa?=

<dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote

Stop trolling the math groups you ignorant son-of-a-*****.

> On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 11:13:22 -0800, "Dutch" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>    Try explaining why you think no being could ever benefit from
>>> its life.
>>
>>I just did, it's a meanless circular expression. Your life *is* what you
>>are, you *are* your life. You don't benefit from you, you benefit from
the
>>things that happen *in* your life.
>
>    You still haven't explained why you think nothing has ever benefitted
> from its life

Yes, I just did. Living things do not benefit from themselves, the
statement 
has no meaning. The only purpose it serves to utter such garbage is to
form 
the basis of a illegitimate rhetorical argument, The Logic of the Larder, 
discredited sophism.

If you were accused of pimping out your children as prostitutes it would
not 
be a valid argument to say that the children "benefitted from their
lives", 
even if their lives were happy for the most part. You simply do not get to

use that argument, the pimping out of children has to be defended on its
own 
merits. If it were decided that pimping out children was acceptable,
*then* 
a secondary consideration would be how those children are treated. If they

are abused, then those practises could be judged as wrong, but that does
not 
address the fundamental question. The same goes for the raising of 
livestock. We are defending the fundamental question of whether or not it
is 
acceptable to raise livestock then use them as food. The question of how
we 
treat them, i.e. whether or not their lives are "beneficial" as you so 
slovenishly put it, is a secondary debate, i.e. "AW".


[..]

>>We take the lives of livestock animals for our sustenance because we
can.
>>They don't "owe" us anything. This idea that livestock "owe" us because
we
>>"gave them life" is repulsive nonsense and you should reject it.
>
>    It's an aspect of the situation which NECESSARILY must be
> taken into consideration

No, it is NOT an aspect of the "situation" at all. The "situation" is the 
debate about whether or not it is morally permissible to raise animals
then 
kill them for food. The animals do not "owe" us anything. Their lives are 
not in debt to us because we raised them.

All you're doing with your nonsense is undermining legitimate defense of 
animal use.